So I was thinking today. Air Canada seems to be getting a lot more pro Boeing. A good thing, yet... Why do they not choose any Boeings for their narrow body fleet. Jazz consists of RJ's as well as DH-8's, and the AC narrow body fleet is Embraer as well as A319-A321. So why no Boeings for narrow body? Also when the time comes for them to start replacing the narrow body fleets as well as RJ's, then will they then look to Boeing? As far as I've been told, Boeing aircraft, 737's to be more precise are more efficient to operate than an A319 or A320. Will they stay airbus and order replacements? Or change to the new 737 replacement?

The A320 series offers more underbelly cargo capacity than the 737. We'll see what happens when the A319/320/321 is due for replacement at AC. It will depend what Boeing and Airbus have on offer at that time.

For the moment the A320 series is serving Air Canada very well. They use it nationally, trans-border, and even intercontinental (with flights to the northern part of South America and last summer, trans-atlantic). It has the right range, passenger capacity and cargo capacity for the job on stage lengths up to about 6 hours.

Quoting Boeingluvr (Thread starter):So I was thinking today. Air Canada seems to be getting a lot more pro Boeing. A good thing, yet... Why do they not choose any Boeings for their narrow body fleet. Jazz consists of RJ's as well as DH-8's, and the AC narrow body fleet is Embraer as well as A319-A321. So why no Boeings for narrow body? Also when the time comes for them to start replacing the narrow body fleets as well as RJ's, then will they then look to Boeing? As far as I've been told, Boeing aircraft, 737's to be more precise are more efficient to operate than an A319 or A320. Will they stay airbus and order replacements? Or change to the new 737 replacement?

I have been asked a similar question yesterday in an other AC thread. I was wondering if AC will order additional A32x before they will order the next generation 737/A320 replacement. So far as I have heard some leases will expire and some Emb 190 have already replaced some A319s.
Regarding your other question the 737NG and A320 are very much the same in economics.
Maybe they will order the 737RSS at some point to have fleet commonality with their 787s and 777s but I can also think that they don´t want to be dependant on one manufacturer and stay with Airbus on narrowbodies.

It will forever be a McDonnell Douglas MD 80 , Boeing MD 80 sounds so wrong

AC will pull down some of the A32x family in favor of the E-Series, but as a whole, i wouldn't count on a replacement before 2015ish. And i wouldn't look for brand loyalty either... AC is famous for not being loyal to one manufacturer, just ask Airbus

Those who would give up Essential Liberty to purchase a little Temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety.

So many variables. What will be available when the time comes to replace the Airbus narrowbodies? Will Boeing keep updating the 737 model or come out with something incorporating newer technologies (or a bit of both)? The same applies to Airbus. Who will offer AC the best deal? The pressure will surely be on both manufacturers to get the order.

Quoting Boeingluvr (Reply 9):Well from what I remember it was a very much political purchase. Some even call it a government scandal at the time the purchase was made.

Let's dispel that myth once and for all. When the A320 purchase decision was made, AC had been privatized. Secondly the competition at the time was the 737-400 and the MD-88.

Neither were capable of carrying a full payload non-stop from YUL to YVR against winter headwinds, and neither offered the cargo capacity, or ability to use underbelly containers, that the A320 does. Moreover, the 737-400 cruises at M 0.74, the Airbus, at M 0.78. At the time AC was seeking a B727 replacement (which itself was pretty marginal on east-to-west non-stop transcons). The 757 was too big, the 737 and MD88 not capable enough, and the A320 just right.

The 737NG leveled the playing field considerably in terms of economics. However it was not available when the purchase was made.

AC purchased the A320 on commercial merit only. Some politicians may give the appearance of trying to get greased in the process (and nothing has been proven in court), but regardless, AC would have chosen the same product at the end of the day.

Oddly enough, back when AC was a crown corporation, Francophone Canadians accused AC of buying the DC-9 on political grounds as well; same old tired argument. The Francophones thought AC should have purchased the Caravelle. How many Caravelles are flying today? How many DC-9s? I thought so. So AC made the right decision then too.

AC has a well-earned reputation for purchasing aircraft purely on technical and commercial grounds, which is why the recent Boeing purchase meant so much to Boeing.

Of course many Boeing lovers (and I am a Boeing lover) just can't get there heads around the fact that in 1989, Airbus offered a superior narrowbody product. Boeing followed on closely with the 737NG. It's called competition and it makes the commercial world go round.

Quoting BeechNut (Reply 10):Let's dispel that myth once and for all. When the A320 purchase decision was made, AC had been privatized. Secondly the competition at the time was the 737-400 and the MD-88.

Wrong.

The purchase was decided before the airline was sold, and was in fact part of the *tart-ing up* of the then crown-corporation that was getting ready for sale.

There isn't any proof of political interference yet it still continues to circulate. Kinda like who shot JFK it may never go away .

The 320/319 had the right stuff at the right time. Simple as that. It was a better product until the 737NG came along. The underbelly cargo was a major factor. One of Air Canada's best cargo customers is Canada Post. The Airbus product was better suited to that. You will see some additional 319/320 returned to leassors, or sold when they get too old. However, AC is enjoying leasing out its aircraft that are owned at very favourable rates so we may see more of that too.

The E aircraft are taking a lot of the heat off the 32x family. And becoming quite popular.

By the time AC is ready to buy the replacements for the 32x family the 737 replacement will be on the scene and it could very well be that if they beat Airbus to the marketplace with it, that is where the order will go.

AC over the years has been the launch customer for quite a few aircraft. HMMMM hehe.

Quoting BeechNut (Reply 10):Let's dispel that myth once and for all. When the A320 purchase decision was made, AC had been privatized.

That's not correct. AC ordered their first 34 A320s in July 1987. If memory correct, the first phase of their privatization didn't happen until October 1988 when they sold 43% of the company in a public offering. The government was still the majority shareholder until 1989.

Air Canada has always bought from a variety of airplane manufactures and likely will continue in that vein. Lockheed, Canadair, Vickers, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Bombardier, Airbus, and now Embraer. Did they fly anything from Bristol? I may have missed one or two but I think the trend will continue. The A330 will likely stay around as long as it makes sense to have 8 aircraft of one type economically. They have been very good aircraft and I for one would love to see then around for a while. I also think we will see some more orders for 787 (perhaps of a different model) and possibly for the 777 family given how well they have been received into the fleet.

Agreed. Boeing needed two aircraft and Airbus only one to meet AC's mission specifications.

AC bought the 320s because at the time, Boeing simply lacked a suitable product. Boeing was overly concerned building 737 derivatives that suited a U.S. customer base that was either doing Southwest hop and skip or Legacy hub runs. The concept of coast to coast nonstops was largely in abeyance, save for a relatively small number of high-density routes that could support 767s, 757s, DC-10s, etc. The Canadian market had only one or two routes that could support 200-seat aircraft whereas AC had a dozen routes or more (like YYZ-SFO, YYZ-LAX, YUL-YVR, etc.)where it needed a 130-seat aircraft with the payload range offered only by the 200-seat 757.

Quoting Sebring (Reply 17):AC bought the 320s because at the time, Boeing simply lacked a suitable product.

Don't forget that CP, which was a major 737-200 operator, also swtiched to the A320. They ordered 17 (plus 17 options) in July 1988, exactly a year after AC's initial A320 order. The A320 also had the advantage of a wider fuselage apart from other technical/pricing considerations.

CP Air had planned to switch from the 737-200 to the 737-300 and had ordered and taken delivery of 5 -300s in 1985/86. When PWA bought CP Air the following year (to create Canadian Airlines), which added PW's large 737-200 fleet to CP's, they decided not to proceed with further 737-300 purchases and sold the 5 that had already been delivered. A year later they ordered the A320.

Quoting NorthStarDC4M (Reply 5):AC will pull down some of the A32x family in favor of the E-Series, but as a whole, i wouldn't count on a replacement before 2015ish. And i wouldn't look for brand loyalty either... AC is famous for not being loyal to one manufacturer, just ask Airbus

It all depends on the domestic or trans-border route AC seeks to operate. They will use E-series on a run such as DEN-YUL. But for the most part the A32X series has done well for them over the last two decades. As for being loyal to one manufacturer you couldn't say it better. In no way has AC been in bed with say MDD as DL was until the early 1980s for example. Keep in mind that the Canadian domestic market is similar in size for population as California, yet covering a land-mass larger than the continental US+Alaska combined. Hence hte reason the 752 was just too big for this.

Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 16): The A330 will likely stay around as long as it makes sense to have 8 aircraft of one type economically.

Those will be the last Airbus wide-bodies to leave the AC fleet. I'll even venture to say they will still be around when AC retires their last 762/763ERs.

Quoting BeechNut (Reply 15):A few politicians with sticky hands would not have changed that decision.

I think if Jack Layton and the NDP ever gained a majority, you would very quickly see AC as a federal crown corporation once again.

Quoting Briboy (Reply 12):I will not comment on the rest of the article, lest the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney PC feels litigious today...

My wife will remind you (as she likes to me all too frequently! ) that Canadians don't have the "litigation disease" that Americans have! "Too many f*%$ing lawyers south of the 49th advertising on day-time TV!"

DELTA Air Lines; The Only Way To Fly from Salt Lake City; Let the Western Heritage always be with Delta!

Okay, back on topic here guys.. Is there any chance that AC will order some of the new EMB-195's? Increased capacity, but I guess smaller range and cargo capacity.. Still, commonality with the rest of the EMB's may make sense?

Personally I don't see a full replacement until the next gen planes are ready..

No. AC was only partially privatized at the time. The Fed Govt still had significant influence on AC.

Quoting BeechNut (Reply 10):AC purchased the A320 on commercial merit only. Some politicians may give the appearance of trying to get greased in the process (and nothing has been proven in court), but regardless, AC would have chosen the same product at the end of the day.

There remains continuing controversy over Mulroney's involvement and influence in the initial AC 320 order, including alleged kickbacks from lobbyists.

Quoting BeechNut (Reply 10):AC has a well-earned reputation for purchasing aircraft purely on technical and commercial grounds, which is why the recent Boeing purchase meant so much to Boeing.

Well, you can say that about any airline. It's a meaningless statement. Actually, AC had a loyalty to Vickers (Viscount, Vanguard) and to RR engines (DC-8-40, L10) that was shared by no other North American airlines to this degree which suggested a pro-British aircraft purchasing philosophy at least in the '60's, perhaps transcending purely technical or commercial considerations.

AC did not need the 320 when they ordered it and their initial 320 order was seen as premature by many industry insiders. AC's 722 fleet was still relatively young at the time of the 320 order, and much younger than the 722 fleets of other North American carriers. Their 722 could have remained in service until the late 90's to maximize the ROI.

Anyway, in the mid 2010's, no doubt AC will be looking to replace its 32x fleet. The choice is almost certainly down to the 737 and A320 replacements by B & A that emerge at that time. In the meantime, I could see AC adding a few more 321's, but not likely any more 319/320.

I dumped at the gybe mark in strong winds when I looked up at a Porter Q400 on finals. Can't stop spotting.

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 21):Well, you can say that about any airline. It's a meaningless statement. Actually, AC had a loyalty to Vickers (Viscount, Vanguard) and to RR engines (DC-8-40, L10) that was shared by no other North American airlines to this degree which suggested a pro-British aircraft purchasing philosophy at least in the '60's, perhaps transcending purely technical or commercial considerations.

But when it came time to replace their large Viscount fleet, they came very close to buying the BAC-111 and it's R-R Speys, but finally decided on the DC-9. That decision also had political implications as Douglas built a large factory in YYZ where all wings for the DC-9, MD-80, DC-10 and MD-11 were built. I expect AC's decision to buy the DC-9 was somehow linked to the Douglas decision to build the wings in Canada.

Quoting Pnwtraveler (Reply 16):Air Canada has always bought from a variety of airplane manufactures and likely will continue in that vein. Lockheed, Canadair, Vickers, Boeing, McDonnell Douglas, Bombardier, Airbus, and now Embraer. Did they fly anything from Bristol? I

Quoting Yyz717 (Reply 21):AC did not need the 320 when they ordered it and their initial 320 order was seen as premature by many industry insiders. AC's 722 fleet was still relatively young at the time of the 320 order, and much younger than the 722 fleets of other North American carriers. Their 722 could have remained in service until the late 90's to maximize the ROI.

The 320 though can carry a lot more belly cargo than the 727, has better range and lower DOC. By transitioning from the 727 to the A320 AC also avoided any Stage-III related costs that the 727 might have incurred. Finally, AC got a good price from FedEX for the bulk of their 727 fleet, so over-all it was a pretty smart move.

Nostalgia isn't what it used to be.

25 BeechNut
: The 727 fleet may have been relatively young at the time, but it was also extremely inefficient. Notwithstanding the belly cargo issue, the 727 has c

26 Yyz717
: Efficiency is relative. Given that the most common North American airliner in the 80's was the 722, the AC fleet was as efficient as any airline, mor

27 BeechNut
: Sorry, efficiency is not relative to the other airlines, it is relative to profitability and shareholder return. AC also got a great deal on the 727s

28 Columba
: As much as I love the 727 -it is my favorite airliner- I have to say your argument is not convincing. Even if the 727 were young and the most common

29 NorthStarDC4M
: you mean BOUGHT a large mostly empty factory for a knock down price so they could build DC-9 wings in Canada and get the policital requirements of th